Tinubunomics set out to shift Nigeria’s economy away from heavy oil dependence toward private-sector-led growth.
By Efio-Ita Nyok
·
Published on November 11, 2026
·
3 min read
Not everything about Tinubunomics means well for ordinary Nigerians. In practice, it has largely served those at the centre of power and their associates while placing the heaviest costs on the wider population. One does not need a formal degree in economics to reach this conclusion. It is enough to examine the actual outcomes.
Economics is a science. The expected consequences of any major policy should therefore be foreseeable from the point of conception. Donald Duke once predicted the outcome of the Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway policy; events largely confirmed his forecast. That is economics in action—clear cause and measurable effect.
Tinubunomics set out to shift Nigeria’s economy away from heavy oil dependence toward private-sector-led growth. Minutes after his inauguration, President Tinubu announced the immediate end of the fuel subsidy regime. He also unified the exchange rate, ending the dual system of an official rate and a parallel black-market rate that had created opportunities for corruption. The market, rather than political fiat, was allowed to determine the naira’s value. In addition, a more robust tax regime has been introduced, expanding non-oil revenues into the federation account—an expansion that will likely deepen if he secures a second term in 2027.
These were bold steps that previous administrations avoided. At the macroeconomic level, progress has been recorded. Yet the microeconomic picture tells a different story. The critical question remains: where have the proceeds from subsidy removal, higher tax collections, a market-driven exchange regime, and continued oil receipts actually gone?
Official government spending has continued to rise. Allegations of financial corruption have not abated. A Premium Times report indicated that, in just two years under the present administration, fuel-subsidy-related payments exceeded those recorded throughout the entire eight years of the Buhari administration. Borrowing has also increased despite the reform narrative.
The result is an uneven distribution of costs and benefits. The negative consequences of these policies have been borne largely by the masses, while the positive outcomes have been enjoyed mainly by the establishment. This is elitist economics—exclusive rather than inclusive.
Tinubunomics may have been launched with good intentions. Good intentions alone, however, are not enough. As long as ordinary Nigerians continue to bear roughly 70 percent of the costs while receiving only about 30 percent of the benefits—and the elite experience the reverse—the policy remains, in substance, exclusive rather than inclusive.
Efio-Ita Nyok, Ph.D., aicmc
Wednesday 11th November 2026
Old Town
